New plans that could bankrupt the press as well as shackling it

THE press in Scotland had expected a good kicking from the expert group that Alex Salmond appointed to come up with what he’s always looking for – a so-called “Scottish solution” to a UK problem.

However, what emerged was enough to take the breath away: we are on track to get a draconian set of curbs and controls that will include what will effectively be a compulsory licensing system for newspapers, as well as social media, and not one, but two, supervisory bodies, the senior of which will be backed by legislation enacted by the SNP-dominated Scottish Parliament.

Gone without trace is the self-regulating ombudsman system, as used in Ireland, which the First Minister had appeared to be leaning towards. Instead, the group set under Lord McCluskey, a former senior High Court judge and ex-Labour Solicitor General, went much, much further than even some of media’s harshest critics had anticipated.

The newspaper industry knows that it has a lot to do to put its house in order but what we’re now faced with is more controls than even Lord Justice Leveson had proposed in London: a regulatory body to be set up from within the newspaper industry but answerable to a higher “recognition authority”, probably headed by a judge or senior lawyer, which would be charged with ensuring that the lower body answered the criticisms of the press contained in the Leveson Report. And all publications would be answerable to the new regime; no opt-outs would be allowed.

Although Lord McCluskey’s report insisted that there is no attempt in any of his recommendations to bring in political control, the new system is to be set up under the auspices and under the authority of the Scottish Parliament, which effectively means Mr Salmond’s SNP.

Related Articles

We should have guessed that Mr Salmond would rush out its findings out as soon as he discovered that talks on a new regulatory system amongst British, or what the Nats would call the English, politicians had broken down at Westminster but the speed of publication still surprised observers. He had told Question Time at Holyrood that the McCluskey paper wasn’t ready and that it might be two weeks before it was published.

In addition he gave no indication of its imminent publication at a later meeting on Thursday afternoon with media industry representatives and other party leaders. However, shortly after that meeting ended government sources let it be known that the report was, after all, almost ready. It was released at 2.00pm yesterday.

It is not just the meat of the McCluskey report that has surprised everyone, it is the practicalities of the thing. It demands total compliance from every section of the media – from national and weekly newspapers right down to the Tweets and blogs on the internet. How all of the latter will be policed is beyond this observer but of far more importance is does Scotland need, or want, a separate system of regulation from that in the rest of the UK?

If David Cameron loses his bid for a non statutory press regulating body in Monday night’s vote, then the odds are on Labour and the Liberal Democrats getting their way and we will see tough new controls on the press, UK-wide, backed up by legislation. In such a case, why bother with a Scotland-only system? The only real reason would be if Alex Salmond wishes it so. And my guess is that he would so wish. If however Cameron wins, and there’s to be no UK statutory body, then it’s a racing certainty that Mr Salmond will press ahead with his plan.

Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, says he wants to have tough regulatory legislation hanging over the Scottish press ahead of the independence referendum next autumn, while Johann Lamont claims that Lord McCluskey’s group exceeded its remit thanks to goading by the SNP leader.

Willie Rennie, for the Liberal Democrats, admitted to be surprised by the compulsory element in the report and there were some signs last night that this McCluskey recommendation might be too much even for the First Minister. Let’s hope so.

But what all the politicians need to face up to is a simple question: If Mr Salmond implements separate McCluskey-style press watchdogs, who will pay for them?

The newspaper industry, at which these curbs are directed, is in a dire financial state, especially in Scotland. Most publishers operate on both sides of the border and would be expected to cough up for whatever is established in London; they simply cannot afford to pay twice over to bankroll a separate Scottish regulator.

Ruth Davidson says Mr Salmond is trying to “shackle” the press. Does he also want it bankrupted?